Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

Too Little Too Late: Effect of Poor Access to Biologics for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BEVERLY K. JOHNSON and ASENA BAHÇE-ALTUNTAŞ
The Journal of Rheumatology December 2017, 44 (12) 1765-1766; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.171148
BEVERLY K. JOHNSON
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Director of Rheumatology, Jacobi Medical Center and North Central Bronx (NCB) Hospital;
MD, MS, FACR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: beverly.johnson06@gmail.com
ASENA BAHÇE-ALTUNTAŞ
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Director of the Joint Pain Clinic, Jacobi/NCB, New York, New York, USA.
MD, FACR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), in particular anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medications, which were developed in the 1990s, have improved the radiographic and functional status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1. It has been thought as a corollary that rates of joint replacement in patients with RA would decrease. Results in various national databases since the advent of biologic medications have been discrepant; for example, in a US cohort there was a decrease in arthroplasty in juvenile idiopathic arthritis, but not RA from 1991 to 20052, whereas in Ireland the arthroplasty rate was halved from 1995 to 20103. In Japan there was no change in the rate up to 2008, while in Sweden the hip arthroplasty rate decreased, but the knee rate did not4. Overall, however, the trend seems to be toward lower rates of arthroplasty in patients with RA.

An article in this issue of The Journal, by Stamp, et al5, provides an interesting analysis of the rates of joint replacement in New Zealand from 1999 to 2015 in both OA and RA since the advent of biologic medications. The results show that according to a New Zealand Joint Registry (1999–2015), while OA joint replacement rates for total knee replacement (TKR) and hip replacement (THR) increased, for patients with RA there was no decrease in the rate of TKR and THR.

How should one interpret these data of no decrease in the RA TKR and THR rates? One should look through the lens of the current situation in New Zealand regarding access to the biologics. Per the authors, biologics were not available in New Zealand until 2006, and even then only 1 was available. Contrast this to the situation of the United States, where there was biologic access nearly a decade earlier.

Further, the authors cite draconian eligibility criteria for biologics in New Zealand: patients need to not only fail triple therapy, but also have erosions on their radiographs. As a stark example, the rate of biologic use in this RA cohort undergoing arthroplasty was < 10%; in a similar US-based cohort the rate was over 50%6,7. Clearly the government policy has affected biologic access for patients with RA in New Zealand.

To demonstrate a contrast, other countries have far less stringent access criteria. These countries have shown better outcomes regarding decreased rates of arthroplasty. In Sweden, although failure of 2 traditional DMARD is recommended, rheumatologists are given discretion to use biological therapy8. In the United States, patients with RA typically must first fail methotrexate, but rheumatologists can use bDMARD as a first-line therapy in early and aggressive disease or in those with contraindications to use of traditional DMARD. In Japan, patients can also be prescribed bDMARD at the discretion of a rheumatologist if they fail traditional DMARD, a policy also far less stringent than the New Zealand criteria. England and Wales have criteria more similar to New Zealand regarding the prescription of biological agents — the patient must fail 2 traditional DMARD, and a state of severe disease is also required (28-joint Disease Activity Score > 5.1), but even these countries do not require erosions prior to biologic initiation8.

This article raises a salient question on the international platform: what should inform a government’s policy for access to biologics for patients with RA? Costs are invariably part and parcel of any discussion of access to biologics. A population-based analysis of indirect and direct costs attributable to RA in Sweden showed the total national burden of illness of 600 million euros in 20109 (US$708 million), and in the United States, it has been estimated at up to US$19.2 billion10. A 2009 study by the National Audit Office in England estimated that RA costs the UK National Health Service £560 million annually, and puts the additional costs from absence from work and aspects of work-related disability at £1.8 billion a year11.

These tremendous costs of RA should not be surprising for rheumatologists, but the additional burden of joint replacements for patients with RA who have poor disease control can significantly compound these costs. Biologic agents, despite their costs, can lower the disease burden for society. This was shown in an analysis of the Swedish Rheumatology Registers, which demonstrated that TNF-inhibitor treatment was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life years and an incremental cost compared to no biological treatment12.

According to the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study, RA was ranked as the 42nd-highest contributor to global disability, representing a modest global disability, but with severe consequences for the individuals affected13. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommend starting bDMARD immediately after diagnosis or after traditional DMARD failure. However, because of the high cost of biology therapies, many national guidelines remain far removed from the goals-based approach recommended by EULAR and ACR. Government policies and national guidelines should consider adopting the societal perspective on reimbursement, as in Sweden, which suggests that the availability of biologic agents may award longterm benefits to both patients with RA and to healthcare systems.

The advent of biosimilars opens a brave new world of opportunity to reduce the cost of access to biological DMARD14. It is our hope that the data from the article by Stamp, et al will open the eyes not just in New Zealand of those who determine access rules for biologics, but also in countries around the world. It is clear from this article that access to biologics for patients with RA after the presence of erosions is too little too late.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Pincus T,
    2. Sokka T,
    3. Kautiainen H
    . Patients seen for standard rheumatoid arthritis care have significantly better articular, radiographic, laboratory, and functional status in 2000 than in 1985. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1009–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mertelsmann-Voss C,
    2. Lyman S,
    3. Pan TJ,
    4. Goodman SM,
    5. Figgie MP,
    6. Mandl LA
    . US trends in rates of arthroplasty for inflammatory arthritis including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:1432–9.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Harty L,
    2. O’Toole G,
    3. FitzGerald O
    . Profound reduction in hospital admissions and musculoskeletal surgical procedures for rheumatoid arthritis with concurrent changes in clinical practice (1995–2010). Rheumatol 2014;54:666–71.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hekmat K,
    2. Jacobsson L,
    3. Nilsson J-Å,
    4. Petersson IF,
    5. Robertsson O,
    6. Garellick G,
    7. et al.
    Decrease in the incidence of total hip arthroplasties in patients with rheumatoid arthritis—results from a well defined population in south Sweden. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Stamp LK,
    2. Haslett J,
    3. Chapman P,
    4. O’Donnell J,
    5. Raja R,
    6. Rothwell A,
    7. et al.
    Rates of joint replacement surgery in New Zealand, 1999–2015: a comparison of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2017;44:1823–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Johnson BK,
    2. Goodman SM,
    3. Alexiades MM,
    4. Figgie MP,
    5. Demmer RT,
    6. Mandl LA
    . Patterns and associated risk of perioperative use of anti-tumor necrosis factor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing total knee replacement. J Rheumatol 2013;40:617–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Goodman SM,
    2. Ramsden-Stein DN,
    3. Huang WT,
    4. Zhu R,
    5. Figgie MP,
    6. Alexiades MM,
    7. et al.
    Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are more likely to have pain and poor function after total hip replacements than patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1774–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hockley T,
    2. Costa-Font J
    . A common disease with uncommon treatment: European guideline variations and access to innovative therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. 2012. [Internet. Accessed October 10, 2017.] Available from: https://policy-centre.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/RAGuidelines.pdf
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kalkan A,
    2. Hallert E,
    3. Bernfort L,
    4. Husberg M,
    5. Carlsson P
    . Costs of rheumatoid arthritis during the period 1990–2010: A register-based cost-of-illness study in Sweden. Rheumatol 2014;53:153–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Birnbaum H,
    2. Pike C,
    3. Kaufman R,
    4. Marynchenko M,
    5. Kidolezi Y,
    6. Cifaldi M
    . Societal cost of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the US. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:77–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. UK National Audit Office
    . Services for people with rheumatoid arthritis. 2009. [Internet. Accessed October 10, 2017.] Available from: www.nao.org.uk/report/services-for-people-with-rheumatoid-arthritis/
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lekander I,
    2. Borgström F,
    3. Lysholm J,
    4. van Vollenhoven RF,
    5. Lindblad S,
    6. Geborek P,
    7. et al.
    The cost-effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Swedish clinical practice. Eur J Health Econ 2013;14:863–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cross M,
    2. Smith E,
    3. Hoy D,
    4. Carmona L,
    5. Wolfe F,
    6. Vos T,
    7. et al.
    The global burden of rheumatoid arthritis: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1316–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Dörner T,
    2. Strand V,
    3. Castañeda-Hernández G,
    4. Ferraccioli G,
    5. Isaacs JD,
    6. Kvien TK,
    7. et al.
    The role of biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:322–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 44, Issue 12
1 Dec 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Too Little Too Late: Effect of Poor Access to Biologics for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Too Little Too Late: Effect of Poor Access to Biologics for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
BEVERLY K. JOHNSON, ASENA BAHÇE-ALTUNTAŞ
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2017, 44 (12) 1765-1766; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171148

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Too Little Too Late: Effect of Poor Access to Biologics for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
BEVERLY K. JOHNSON, ASENA BAHÇE-ALTUNTAŞ
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2017, 44 (12) 1765-1766; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171148
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • More Evidence on the Validity of the Measurement Properties of PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Tests in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • 50th Year of Publication: Honoring the Duncan A. Gordon Award Winners
  • Unequal Treatment: Physical Therapy Utilization in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2023 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire